Well I mean I'm a massive fan of all fiction types, but I easily love science fiction the most. Therefore the Imperator Bavarium Tank takes my first place, but before Just Cause 3 it was in fact the Ballard M5B1 Scout. It still remains a close second.
If you want to talk about memories associated with the vehicles, I have more memories with the Ballard than the Imperator.
The funny thing about cannon vs. MG when shooting at soldiers is that realistically it's obviously better to use an MG against soldiers, but it's the other way around in all games.
Soldiers die after having been hit a certain number of times. This means that an MG will waste time, because you'll have to keep it on each target for a few seconds and even then some soldiers who were knocked over by the gunfire will get up like it was nothing, because they're still 1 bullet away from dead.
Cannons cause explosions, which have an area of effect, so you can take out more targets at a time and they'll be guaranteed to die, because explosions are programmed to cause more harm.
This can be observed more easily in JC1 where if you're in a vehicle, the enemy helicopters will shoot missiles at you. Those missiles are a major threat. But as soon as you get out of your car, the danger is over, because they'll switch to MGs. The AI helicopter MGs are so inaccurate that as long as you don't stand still, Ricos health regenerates faster than they can kill you.
Also, all explosions are equal, unless proven otherwise.
In JC2 were have upgrade stars in the Black Market, but in JC1 nearly all explosions are equal: Cannons, grenades, missiles, red barrels. I can remember spending a lot of time trying to measure if grenades were equal to triggered explosives (they probably were), but the gas stations definitely seemed to be more powerful. That was probably because each gas pump counts as a separate explosion source.
The damage difference isn't enough. The only enemy vehicle destroyed quicker is the Obrero. And armour doesn't really change much, they both usually get destroyed in the same amount of time (except of course the IBT).
I seem to recall there being a certain thing that takes out shields and shuts down the engine. I can also remember there being a truck that can take out shielded vehicles, but the truck probably wouldn't survive.
As long as the enemy are only infantry and unarmored low-heat vehicles, the best "tank" should be the Harland DTWV-2 AA gun.
For anyone who hasn't played JC1: Maneuverability is about the same as the Urga Bkolos 2100. It can survive any small arms fire and one explosion. A second explosion would cause an engine fire (5 seconds to explosion). In JC1 explosions seem to be the same (hit from Ballard M5B1 Scout = Red barrel = helicopter missile = grenade).
Yup. What we have are "scout cars", "armored cars", wheeled "infantry fighting vehicles", "armored personnel carriers" and apparently Italy has defined some of theirs as "tank destroyers", despite being inferior to tanks in every way.
Until proven otherwise, the Just Cause Universe might have very few tracked vehicles and none in the military. If you look at a bulldozer Scando Track Loader Extreme, do you think: "Wow that looks like a potential epic military vehicle!"? No, you don't, because it's very slow.
100 years ago in reality, an armored bulldozer with an MG would have been nearly unstoppable. WW1 tanks moved at walking pace and they were only produced because trench warfare on the western front had lead to this. Speed was not a priority and technology couldn't make them faster yet. But now let us suppose that the WW1 west front would have been just like the east front and seen only limited use of trenches and would have remained mobile thanks to armored cars. The east front was always mobile with cavalry, armored cars and armored trains.
With out the military to develop fast tracked vehicles in the 1920s (because the concept of tanks had proven itself only 10 years ago in the great war), the only tracked vehicles would be the various very slow industrial vehicles, like excavators. In a world like that, it would seem strange to suggest the creation of a very slow armored vehicle that would have about the same combat effectiveness of the proven 8-wheeled vehicles.
Actually, the last time a main battle tank could be taken out with a had helf rocket launcher was in the 1950s. Newer vehicles have composite armor. (Many layers of all sorts of weird materials.) Armor strength is still measured and listed as an equivalent of "rolled homogeneous steel/armor". The had held RPGs can go through only around 300 mm of RHA (1950s tanks). Games and movies have created the delusion that any modern RPG is infinitely powerful.
To take out a modern tank, that has the equivalent of over 1000mm of RHA, you'd need a really expensive and high-end rocket launcher (every shot costs around 50000) that's too big and heavy to be fired from the shoulder. Weapons like that are only fired from a tripod and they're only transported in pieces.
The Abrams is said to have something like the equivalent of 900 to 1000 mm of RHA at the front. The new russian T14 is unknown, but I've heard speculation of 1100, or even 1200 mm. Obviously the front wall is the thickest area and the roof hatches should be the thinnest, but during the recent wars there have been reports of people firing 1980s hand held RPGs at parked Abrams roof hatches with no damage made.
Those same RPGs could easily take out any APC, but modern IFVs have very well sloped armor and some vehicles are covered with special fences to be completely immune any RPGs.
My point is that you're wrong to say that modern vehicles are becoming weaker. Quite the opposite in fact. Modern vehicles can survive the kind of RPGs and landmines that would have completely blown up any 1970s vehicles.
The high-end missiles I mentioned above are even clever enough to fly above the target vehicle and fire a projectile into its roof (thinnest armor). Meanwhile armored vehicles have been given radio and laser jammers, to make them resistant to smart missiles, by making it impossible (or just difficult) to aim at them and to blind the guided missiles.
The humvees were originally not armored at all. They were just a larger and more powerful replacement for the 1940 Jeep (Wallys GP). As far as I've heard, the frontline humvees have had over 10 different armor upgrades, starting from the early 90s.
This is pretty big, but should take out anything less than tanks and most tanks that aren't well angled. Penetrates up to 1000 mm of RHA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MILAN Uses wire-guidance, meaning that it leaves a thin wire behind that connects the launcher to the missile. It shouldn't be possible to scramble the signal, but if you miss, the enemy might spot you soon.
This is great, but a loaded weapon is 95.5 kg. Penetrates over 1200 mm of RHA. It should be enough to make the T14 stop and rethink its choices: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAPATS Uses laser guidance, so really the T14 could blind it.
Anything bigger and better would need a vehicle and would certainly cost over 100'000 moneys per shot.
No. I'm saying that all obsolete anti tank weapons from the second half of the 20th century can still easily knock out the likes of the SV-1003 Raider and the Meister LAV 4 series 2. Against actual tanks, it depends entirely on what weapon you use and where specifically you aim and what angle the hit occurs and such.
And your info is out of date.
In the late 1940s, Israel was given a number of Shermans and even a bunch of Panzer 4s, among many other WW2 vehicles. Similarly Russia supplied north Korea with T-34/85s.
Those Israely M4 tanks were last used in their original configuration in the 1950s. Later they were all heavily customized into all sorts of weird vehicles. Mostly self propelled artillery. Some tanks were modernized with new engines and much bigger guns, but these were renamed to "Sherman M-50" and "-51". And even these were replaced by the 1980s.
Meanwhile, about 100 of them were sold to Chile where they were remade again with new guns. These were then renamed to "Sherman M-60". These are reported to have been decommissioned in 1999.
The last known stock WW2 tank that has been used even in this century is the T-34/85. According to Wikipedia, they were last used in 2016 in Yemen, but they're still in the official armament of a few other nations too.
While we are on the matter of tanks, what was your favorite tank from WW2? Mine was either the panzer or the T-34.
"the panzer"? I mentioned Panzer IV, but all german tanks were designated as "Panzerkampfwagen" (german word for tank).
And I don't know. I don't think I have a favourite.
Also GMRE you seem to know a lot about tanks. What is the best tank, armament wise right now.
Hmm... I have no idea. The thing about tank guns is that since about the late 70s, the main guns of tanks have had 2 different functions:
In fact, the most advanced armor piercing projectiles are around maybe only 50mm, but they have small stabilizing wings that fold open, right after they leave the barrel. It's the folding wings that need extra room. Similarly, as various good missiles became available, some nations developed tanks with only missile armament. This was first tested with as early as 1960s. Back then the missiles were not yet as good, so it was believed that a cannon with a simpler projectile is still a more reliable way to fight armored vehicles. Then soon after, it was also noticed that while the normal tank guns only needed to be about 100 mm, they could easily launch the missiles and other rocket boosted projectiles through the gun, if they made it a little bigger. This is why tank guns were made bigger to about 120 mm. In Russia, they've made some tanks with 125 mm guns and I've heard read rumors that when the T14 was still in development, they wanted to make a tank with a 150 mm gun, to have bigger (= better?) missiles. The T14 still ended up with a 125 mm gun.
Basically, we can speculate all we want, but specific armament effectiveness details for modern tanks are obviously classified.
According to russian propaganda, the T14 can out-range the Abrams, but until this has been confirmed by an independent eye witness who has seen the T14 in action, it's only propaganda.
Of the current somewhat modern tanks:
T14 is currently still the worlds newest high-end tank. Russia has (or should have) lots of feedback from the performance of all post WW2 T-series tanks. These tanks have all been involved in all the wars since WW2. Surely they must have taken some of that into consideration while developing the T14.
Abrams has by far the most battle experience and upgrades that were developed based on that experience.
The english and the germans also claim to have great tanks, but they lack tank combat experience in modern wars. I suppose the english got some in Afghanistan, but did they really improve their tanks after that? I doubt they met modern-ish enemy tanks anyway.
China claims to have all the greatest everything, but their military is really estimated to be technologically in the 1970s and combat effectiveness-wise even further back. They have never fought in a real war and all their tanks are domestically made versions of russian 1980s tanks. I'm sure they have upgrades over the russian originals, but not so much that they would matter.
A few other nations, like Turkey, Japan, South Korea, France, India and possibly more also have modern tanks, but their tanks are widely considered to be a bit inferior (due to lack of money, or military technology), not to mention their lack of modern warfare experience.
Just wondering, but what are your favorite planes from WW2? Mine are:
5. Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
4. Junkers Ju 87 AKA the Stuka dive bomber
3. Mitsubishi A6M "Zero"
2.Grumman F6F Hellcat
1. Supermarine Spitfire
Right... because they were apparently the most effective. But why should they be your favourite, just because they were the most effective? Then the question is not which one is your favourite, but which one was apparently the best. But were your choices the only best at anything?
Kawanishi H8K - According to some sources, the best flying boat.
Horten 229 - Potentially very efficient jet fighter and the first stealth fighter. (Only 3 prototypes built before the war ended.)
Horten H.XVIII - Jet powered bomber stealth bomber. (Not actually built. The germans lacked the industrial capacity due to losing the war.)
Messerschmitt 323 - Believed by some to have been a great tactical transport.
Dornier 335 - Fastest piston engine fighter. (Only 7 prototypes made, but it out-performed all allied piston engine fighters.)
5. North American T-6 Texan I 'Harvard'- It's a trainer but special for me because of the various restored Harvards in NZ that display in the 'Roaring 40s' display team
4. Avro Lancaster- No need to explain it's glory
3. Supermarine Spitfire- Not only fast and agile but also beautiful and streamlined
2. Hawker Seafury- Beautiful piston engined aircraft, one of the fastest of it's type and the basis for the Carmen Albatross
1. de Havilland Vampire- My favourite because of how unique the craft is, and just how awesome seeing one is, although put into prodcution after the end of the war, it was designed during the last stages.
My favourite vehicle in the Just Cause Franchise would have to be the Golden Urga Mstitel. The design of the Urga Mstitel is amazing and provides fear to others and also the weapon placement is prefect
Best boat is an opinion. In terms of armament and speed Loochador tops it off. Corvette is biggest and most heavily armoured, CS 77 can seat the most (seat used very loosely), Urga Hroch can carry the most vehicles. I like the Corvette the best, a truly beautiful vessel, same goes for the CS77 and Hroch. Not to much a fan of civil boats styling, although the variety is awesome (still needs more).
Also the Mstitel is only the fastest and most heavily armed, why I prefer the Navajo, plus it looks cooler IMO.
Would be fun IRL. Not necesarily in game. Except burnout machine. You can wield guns on it although they're mostly useless unless it's a special weapon. Then again it's technically the most powerful boat with the ability to wield the eDEN Spark
I feel like the Bkolos is weaker because it only has a single weapon type, but the Odjur has a machine gun and a cannon. I have yet to encounter a Bavarium Tank. I even missed my encounter with an enemy Mistitel or whatever because the SAMs took it out.
There isn't much difference in power between the Odjur and Bkolos's main cannon, sure the Odjur has a machine gun, but it's not needed since a cannon blast covers a wider area and multiple enemies where the machine gun may be difficult to aim, especially on console, so when you finally aim your cannon has reloaded.
One shot, you're fine, second sometimes. Usually the AI is so inaccurate it doesn't matter, and the Bkolos is much easier to handle while the Odjur has odd quirks where you may flip when going up steep inclines. Also the turret turns much quicker on the Bkolos giving you the first shot, and letting you dodge out of the way if you can. I also don't find any trouble with shooting down helicopters, if anything it's more difficult in the Odjur because of how slow the turret moves combined with rate of fire.
Panau had more realistic highways with overpasses and overhead signs and the lot. The highway begins outside Perla Est and terminates at the intersection to Insula Dracon. There is a much larger highway running around the rim of Insula Fonte, with at least one route heading through the centre of the island.
As for good roads there are plenty around the large mountain in Libeccio, the two northern provinces, Montana and Maestrale with a lot more I haven't listed.